Can't annulment tribunals dissolve valid marriages?

[SerraSemper]

I might add that in these two scenarios… there was no marriage in the eyes of God or the Church (how do I know? because the poster wrote “lack of form”). Thus, the “spouses” are free to choose whom they marry, if they marry, because they are single. They must go through the same discernment any other person who is single and has children must go through, but with the natural law responsibilities of making sure the rights of the civil law spouse and their children are protected. “Spouse #1” must evaluate herself, her civil law husband who is really her partner in fornication, the situation of her children, and see whether there is a possibility of a future valid marriage between her and her civil law husband. She must evaluate whether it is something she feels called to do (she is under no obligation to marry him), or whether she wants to marry someone else, or remain single and separate herself from her lover (hopefully by divorce or a decree of separation by the state) so as to keep from an occasion of sin.

Convalidations and sanations are NOT Church or God’s blessings on a marriage. They ARE marriage. A convalidation IS a marriage ceremony, in which hopefully the couple contract a valid marriage (or perhaps not hopefully if its doomed to be an invalid marriage anyhow). A sanation creates a valid marriage where NON existed before. Thus we can’t have the image in our minds of a real marriage **bond **between the couple and then the convalidation ceremony or the sanation is just a cute way of God and Church recognizing that bond and blessing it. No, no, no! It is a case where two single people actually get married whether in the convalidation (marriage) ceremony or by the sanation.

 

[JRKH]

SerraSemper,

Great posts…

Peace
James

 

[Sharelle]

Many of you responding on this issue seem to be following the letter of the law as you see it and are missing the spirit of the law. Any marriage, but especially with children, that isn’t valid should be validated for the sake of the children and the other spouse. Instead you defend the right of someone, whom you argue is single, to remarry rather than do the honorable thing and convalidate.

For example, my brother-in-law found evidence that his 32-year marriage wasn’t valid. His real reason was because, in his elderly years, he wished to take a new wife, but if he had had any integrity, he would have renewed consent with his faithful, loving wife of three decades. Actually he did at their 25-year mark, but that was ignored in favor of what he wanted when he wanted it!

As it is, his true, first wife is suffering from osteoporosis and spends her days at an ironing board making ends meet while her husband plans cruises with the new woman, whom I argue is not his wife. The ground for the declaration of nullity was lack of due discretion using the kind of outrageous evidence that I quoted above from Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn, but no one on the site caught the fact that it is simply ridiculous to argue that a wife “felt chronically disenfranchised in her marriage.” Do such absurdities have to be accepted or you will not get a Canon Law degree?

I could quote case after case like the one I just described to show the evil of what is being done in marriage (not “annulment”) tribunals all across the country.

It is beyond frustrating that loyal Catholics have had to put up with this holocaust while those in charge pretend that all is well. It’s not.

 

[dans0622]

Annulment tribunals are able to declare many more marriages null today because the present code of canon law puts the good of the spouses first before the procreation of offspring (p. 13, Judging Invalidity, Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn), and because great importance is given to expert opinions of those in psychiatry and psychology who have been able to argue that some disorders are latent in the subject prior to marriage and surface during the marriage (p. 15, Ibid).

The essence of the good of the spouses or bonum coniugum, is not clear (p. 206, The Invalid Marriage, Fr. Wrenn), but that does not stop tribunals from referring to it in judging marriage cases. Fr. Wrenn refers to a Woody Allen movie Hannah and Her Sisters in his effort to define what it is (p. 211, Ibid).

An example that Fr. Wrenn gives of a disorder being latent is the testimony of a counselor who said that the woman “felt chronically disenfranchised in her relationship with [her husband]” (p. 17, Ibid).

A marriage might be invalid because of lack of form, such as those discussed here, but every marriage can be argued to be invalid by arguing that the good of the spouses is not being served or that disorders are present preventing consent or capacity . The only way Sheila Rauch Kennedy was able to have her declaration of nullity overturned was because some Rotal judges don’t think the way most American tribunalists do.

Hello,

A few comments. First of all, the first two references are not really to Fr. Wrenn but, first, to the Code of Canon Law, c. 1055, and to a decision by Boccafola, a Judge at the Rota. Your first reference is misleading because the Code, Boccafola, and Wrenn do not say that tribunals can declare many more marriages null because the bonum coniugum is placed before the *bonum prolis *in c. 1055. That is your opinion, not theirs.

Second paragraph: if that is how Fr. Wrenn wants to try to explain it, fine. I wouldn’t bother to use that movie or any movie, but…to each his own.

Third paragraph: that is not related to the alleged “latency” of the disorder, nor is it supposed to be independent proof of invalidity. It is one comment among many which is put forth to show that the woman in the case was not capable of assuming the essential obligations of marriage. The most relevant point from an “Expert” in that case is the one that says the woman suffered from major depression and moderate to severe narcissistic personality disorder (p. 17). That “Expert” says she had these disorders at the present time as well as at the time of the wedding–that is where you can say he went too far: how can he know she suffered from them 15 years ago? Maybe his report explained how he came to this conclusion. At any rate, “latency” is not an issue in that case.

Fourth paragraph: sure, anyone can argue anything. But, I see very few cases that have anything to do with the bonum coniugum. I’m not sure where you got the idea that this is a common theme in nullity cases. Likewise, “disorders” can be claimed but that claim is meaningless if there is no professional diagnosis. Regarding Kennedy, maybe the second-instance tribunal would have come to the same conclusion as the Rota. So, to say that the Rota was the only way is speculation, not fact. That being said, I certainly agree that most Rota Judges are more strict in their decisions than are most Judges in the USA.

Dan

 

[JRKH]

Many of you responding on this issue seem to be following the letter of the law as you see it and are missing the spirit of the law. Any marriage, but especially with children, that isn’t valid should be validated for the sake of the children and the other spouse. Instead you defend the right of someone, whom you argue is single, to remarry rather than do the honorable thing and convalidate.

For example, my brother-in-law found evidence that his 32-year marriage wasn’t valid. His real reason was because, in his elderly years, he wished to take a new wife, but if he had had any integrity, he would have renewed consent with his faithful, loving wife of three decades. Actually he did at their 25-year mark, but that was ignored in favor of what he wanted when he wanted it!

As it is, his true, first wife is suffering from osteoporosis and spends her days at an ironing board making ends meet while her husband plans cruises with the new woman, whom I argue is not his wife. The ground for the declaration of nullity was lack of due discretion using the kind of outrageous evidence that I quoted above from Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn, but no one on the site caught the fact that it is simply ridiculous to argue that a wife “felt chronically disenfranchised in her marriage.” Do such absurdities have to be accepted or you will not get a Canon Law degree?

I could quote case after case like the one I just described to show the evil of what is being done in marriage (not “annulment”) tribunals all across the country.

It is beyond frustrating that loyal Catholics have had to put up with this holocaust while those in charge pretend that all is well. It’s not.

I would suggest to anyone frustrated with the system to contact their local chancery and offer to help improve Catholic marriages in any way they can. I’m sure that the Chancery will have many helpful suggestions in how to do this.
In this way - the underlying problem contained in many marriages can be fixed.

Peace
James

 

[Ninian29]

God Bless this woman…

This woman will have to answer for her sin before God.

Please explain how “The Church” as mistreated the “loving spouse and their children” in example #2. The woman certainly has mistreated them…The Church has acted properly.

Again - one would need to explain how it is “The Church” that has done this rather than the individual who committed the sin of coveting another spouse and sought and received the annulment on fraudulent grounds.
Yes I say fraudulent grounds because, in your second example, the woman did not give her husband the opportunity to have their marriage blessed by the Church. Instead simply opting for divorce etc…It is SHE who drove the spike - not the Church.

It’s easy to spout off “possibilities” - but when one begins to examine what actually happens in these scenarios they begin to fall apart.

Peace
James

 

[Ninian29]

The church wont allow the tribunal in the case of anyone been romantically involvedwith another during the tribunal process.The case is thrown out,so therefore it is simply silly to suggest the Church would allow the case when the person seeking an annulment is involved romantically with another person.
If the person lies to the tribunal this is different and the Church is not at fault,the person would be lying and would answer before God.The Church is protected by Christ and therefore people are answerable before God and should not question the Church teachings and authority.Question the people in the Church-yes.Church TEACHING is infallible,people however are not.

 

[Corki]

The church wont allow the tribunal in the case of anyone been romantically involvedwith another during the tribunal process.The case is thrown out,so therefore it is simply silly to suggest the Church would allow the case when the person seeking an annulment is involved romantically with another person.
If the person lies to the tribunal this is different and the Church is not at fault,the person would be lying and would answer before God.The Church is protected by Christ and therefore people are answerable before God and should not question the Church teachings and authority.Question the people in the Church-yes.Church TEACHING is infallible,people however are not.

First of all, the hypotheticals are for lack of form cases. These cases don’t usually involve the whole tribunal process.

Second, in many, if not most cases, the annulment process is started many years after the civil divorce. There is often a romantic involvement on the part of one or both parties. Many annulments are instigated when a divorced and remarried person wants to reconcile with the Church. If you are remarried, even civilly, I hope you are romantically involved.

 

[JRKH]

First of all, the hypotheticals are for lack of form cases. These cases don’t usually involve the whole tribunal process.

Yes - I’m afraid some of us have a poor understanding of these things. Glad to have other good and knowledgeable folks to help straighten us out.

I think that what many of us have been trying to address, not just with the hypotheticals but in general, is that the problems tend lie not so much with the tribunal system but with those who subvert the system through some personal sin…

Second, in many, if not most cases, the annulment process is started many years after the civil divorce. There is often a romantic involvement on the part of one or both parties. Many annulments are instigated when a divorced and remarried person wants to reconcile with the Church. If you are remarried, even civilly, I hope you are romantically involved.

Amen - and this was the case for myself…

Praise God for his mercy on his sinful servant.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

The church wont allow the tribunal in the case of anyone been romantically involvedwith another during the tribunal process.The case is thrown out,so therefore it is simply silly to suggest the Church would allow the case when the person seeking an annulment is involved romantically with another person.
If the person lies to the tribunal this is different and the Church is not at fault,the person would be lying and would answer before God.The Church is protected by Christ and therefore people are answerable before God and should not question the Church teachings and authority.Question the people in the Church-yes.Church TEACHING is infallible,people however are not.

Correct - so the system works - unless someone subverts it through personal sin. That is really the bottom line…

Peace
James

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Correct - so the system works - unless someone subverts it through personal sin. That is really the bottom line…

Peace
James

Yes, and if someone has lied, God still knows better.

 

[JimG]

Many of you responding on this issue seem to be following the letter of the law as you see it and are missing the spirit of the law. Any marriage, but especially with children, that isn’t valid should be validated for the sake of the children and the other spouse. Instead you defend the right of someone, whom you argue is single, to remarry rather than do the honorable thing and convalidate.

For example, my brother-in-law found evidence that his 32-year marriage wasn’t valid. His real reason was because, in his elderly years, he wished to take a new wife, but if he had had any integrity, he would have renewed consent with his faithful, loving wife of three decades. Actually he did at their 25-year mark, but that was ignored in favor of what he wanted when he wanted it!

As it is, his true, first wife is suffering from osteoporosis and spends her days at an ironing board making ends meet while her husband plans cruises with the new woman, whom I argue is not his wife. The ground for the declaration of nullity was lack of due discretion using the kind of outrageous evidence that I quoted above from Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn, but no one on the site caught the fact that it is simply ridiculous to argue that a wife “felt chronically disenfranchised in her marriage.” Do such absurdities have to be accepted or you will not get a Canon Law degree?

I could quote case after case like the one I just described to show the evil of what is being done in marriage (not “annulment”) tribunals all across the country.

It is beyond frustrating that loyal Catholics have had to put up with this holocaust while those in charge pretend that all is well. It’s not.

I have zero knowledge of marriage tribunals, so I have no expertise in this area at all. But I wonder if anyone else wishes to address the question of why, if a defect in validity is discovered after many years of putative marriage, the first response ought not to be to seek to correct the defect and validate the marriage, rather than seek a declaration of nullity.

 

[SMHW]

I have zero knowledge of marriage tribunals, so I have no expertise in this area at all. But I wonder if anyone else wishes to address the question of why, if a defect in validity is discovered after many years of putative marriage, the first response ought not to be to seek to correct the defect and validate the marriage, rather than seek a declaration of nullity.

Well on the surface it seems that way.

But if at least one party to the marriage does not agree to to marry the other then what can the Church do?

 

[surritter]

I have zero knowledge of marriage tribunals, so I have no expertise in this area at all. But I wonder if anyone else wishes to address the question of why, if a defect in validity is discovered after many years of putative marriage, the first response ought not to be to seek to correct the defect and validate the marriage, rather than seek a declaration of nullity.

I suppose it would be because the couple doesn’t examine the marriage until they think it’s on the rocks. They may already have mentally “checked out” of the marriage by that point, so they lean toward the annulment rather than convalidation.

IOW – If everything’s humming along just fine, why would they bother to dig into the technicalities of marriage? (I’m not saying that this is a smart philosophy; a good Catholic couple should understand marriage and nurture the roots of their bond on a daily basis!)

 

[JimG]

I suppose it would be because the couple doesn’t examine the marriage until they think it’s on the rocks. They may already have mentally “checked out” of the marriage by that point, so they lean toward the annulment rather than convalidation.

IOW – If everything’s humming along just fine, why would they bother to dig into the technicalities of marriage? (I’m not saying that this is a smart philosophy; a good Catholic couple should understand marriage and nurture the roots of their bond on a daily basis!)

Yes, I guess you are right. I’m wondering if an unfortunate side effect of the tribunal process itself as it is now, may be to subtly insert doubts as to indissolubility, even to newlyweds.

This is mere speculation on my part. I can recall at time when divorce was so disapproved, even among Protestants, that no one even thought of the possibility as serious, especially at the time of marriage.

This thought struck me again the other day. I was reading an Anne Tyler novel, and one of the characters, a mother whose daughter was about to enter into a rather sudden marriage, said this to her: “…do you realize what you’re getting into? We’re talking about the man who’ll be holding your hand when you die. Or you’ll be holding his when he dies. Is that something you have considered?”

It struck me that that kind of a remark is something that would never be said now by anyone. And I have to wonder why.

 

[Sharelle]

At 10.27 a.m. today, James replies to Corki’s quote below:

Quote:
Second, in many, if not most cases, the annulment process is started many years after the civil divorce. There is often a romantic involvement on the part of one or both parties. Many annulments are instigated when a divorced and remarried person wants to reconcile with the Church. If you are remarried, even civilly, I hope you are romantically involved.

Amen - and this was the case for myself…

Praise God for his mercy on his sinful servant.

Peace
James

My response:

James indicates that he was divorced and remarried. That makes it difficult for him to defend first marriages. Would he, for example, have come back to the Church if he had been required to return to his first wife? That was required as a rule before lax grounds for nullity were introduced. I may be missing something, however, in his response above.

Corki mentions romance which I don’t find relevant but, rather, the problem; it is not a reason for divorce/nullity/remarriage or anything else that I can think of related to the issue.

 

[Corki]

I have zero knowledge of marriage tribunals, so I have no expertise in this area at all. But I wonder if anyone else wishes to address the question of why, if a defect in validity is discovered after many years of putative marriage, the first response ought not to be to seek to correct the defect and validate the marriage, rather than seek a declaration of nullity.

Before the tribunal will investigate a marriage, it must be assured that the marriage has already irrevocably broken down. Catholics are supposed to make all attempts to salvage their marriage before divorcing civilly. The letter of the law is that you are supposed to get permission from the Bishop before you separate. And you can’t start a petition for the tribunal to look at the validity of your marriage unless you are civilly divorced.

Getting an annullment is not the first response. It is the last. But if there is a true defect (not just a lack of form), then it is very possible that it cannot be corrected.

Corki mentions romance which I don’t find relevant but, rather, the problem; it is not a reason for divorce/nullity/remarriage or anything else that I can think of related to the issue.

I did not mention romance, per se, but being romantically involved. That is very relevant to my response since it was part of the post to which I was replying - that by Ninian.

 

[JRKH]

At 10.27 a.m. today, James replies to Corki’s quote below:

Quote:

Second, in many, if not most cases, the annulment process is started many years after the civil divorce. There is often a romantic involvement on the part of one or both parties. Many annulments are instigated when a divorced and remarried person wants to reconcile with the Church. If you are remarried, even civilly, I hope you are romantically involved.

Amen - and this was the case for myself…

Praise God for his mercy on his sinful servant.

Peace
James

My response:

James indicates that he was divorced and remarried. That makes it difficult for him to defend first marriages.

You know next to nothing about my life, my previous relationships etc…I therefore find it highly presumptuous of you to assume that I would have “difficulty” defending first marriages.

Would he, for example, have come back to the Church if he had been required to return to his first wife?

This is indeed a difficult question and one that I am grateful to a merciful God and His Church that I did not have to answer at the time.

That was required as a rule before lax grounds for nullity were introduced.

This presumes that the rules are “Lax” as opposed to simply “different”…

I may be missing something, however, in his response above.

Yes - you are missing personal knowledge of me, my life, my education, my relationships, my spirituality, and my ability to speak objectively on a given subject.
If my experience makes it difficult for me to “defend first marriages”, does not your (your sister’s) experience with the tribunal system make it difficult for YOU to speak objectively on these matters? many of the adjectives that you choose seem to indicate that it does…But then - maybe I’m missing something in your posts…

Truce?

Peace
James
[/QUOTE]

 

[Ninian29]

First of all, the hypotheticals are for lack of form cases. These cases don’t usually involve the whole tribunal process.

Second, in many, if not most cases, the annulment process is started many years after the civil divorce. There is often a romantic involvement on the part of one or both parties. Many annulments are instigated when a divorced and remarried person wants to reconcile with the Church. If you are remarried, even civilly, I hope you are romantically involved.

No,I am not remarried.Not even civilly…

I believe I have just become a victim of harsh judgement on this so called Catholic forum.

 

[Corki]

No,I am not remarried.Not even civilly…

I believe I have just become a victim of harsh judgement on this so called Catholic forum.

WHAAAAAT?!?!? I never implied that you were married, remarried or anything at all. ** I didn’t know we were even talking about your personal situation. ** I was talking about people who are seeking annulments, which often happens years after a divorce when a person wants to remarry or has already remarried outside the Church.

You are only a victim if you choose to be and certainly not a victim of any judgement here.